|
This writing excerpt is taken from, Malicious History: An investigation into King James VI of Scotland, I of England, and his place in the history of witch hunts, my MA thesis from the University of Montevallo, Montevallo Alabama
Chapter Seven Witchcraft Fraud Exposed and Pardoned by King James Historically, the image that is given to King James I of England is one of a monarch who sat upon his throne, ignorant of the rest of the world, issuing orders against witchcraft in the name of God which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent victims. His educated underlings and nobles grumbled in frustration at their sovereign’s ignorance but could do little to stop the madman from forging ahead with his plans for the elimination of evil forces in the world.
Perhaps this is an extremist image, but it is essentially how history has described King James I. However, as previously discussed, it is not an accurate portrayal. His personal concerns in the matters of witchcraft are greatly exaggerated. He did have an interest in the subject early in his Scottish reign as James VI, but this was more intellectual curiosity than pure involvement. What is apparent is that previously conceived notions of his active participation were based more on his society’s acceptance of witchcraft than by his actual involvement. The monarch carries the reputation of his country and not that of his personal beliefs. If this is accepted as truth, then it leaves open an avenue of investigation to further the idea that James I was merely a socially responsive monarch.
These are but four of the pardons. There were others that concerned lesser charges such as healing through witchcraft, causing storms, and cursing animals. The cases listed above were of individuals reportedly murdering and invoking demonic forces. And yet King James I pardoned these individuals based on what he believed to be little or no evidence or just plain disbelief. The are court documented cases where James I displays a blatant disregard for the Statute of 1604 because James was not an intolerant and indiscriminate witch prosecutor. Still, it is James I who is perceived as the avid witch-hunter.
What then, was the reaction of those who burdened King James I with the reputation he now bears? Even some sixty years after his dismissal of such cases, the late king was receiving ill review of his actions. Francis Osborne wrote in one of his many essays that :
What his Judgment was of Witchcraft, you may, in part, find by His Treatise on that Subject, and Charge he gave the Judges, to be Circumspect in Condemning those, Committed by Ignorant justices, for Diabolical Compacts. Nor had he Concluded his Advice in a Narrower Circle, (as I have heard) Then the Denyal of any such operations, but out of Reason of State: and to gratifie, the Church, which hath in no Age, thought fit to explode out of the Common? peoples minds, An Apprehension of Witchcraft.[3]
Dr. John Lambe was a less than reputable charlatan passing as a physician, sorcerer, and consultant in witchcraft cases. He was convicted in Worcester on two separate indictments: the first was for the "wasting and consuming" of Thomas Lord Windsor by witchcraft; the second for "invoking and entertaining" evil spirits. Each crime carried a death sentence.[4] Each of the two sentences were commuted to imprisonment and Lambe was removed to Worcester Castle for confinement. He was taken before the King’s Bench in London where he remained for an extended period. However, his confinement was atypical. It is reported that he was allowed to continue his practice, which he did, receiving patients and clients and generally operating a successful business from his ‘prison’.[5]
While in prison, he was charged and convicted of rape, but the charges and conviction were overturned and he received a pardon in 1624. Lambe took up residence in London to stay close to his influential friends. He remained there until his death in 1628 at the hands of a group of individuals with whom he had a disagreement.[6] Such cases as Lambe’s were well publicized among social circles. His conviction of witchcraft against the Earl of Worcester would have been known to the king. Why pardon such a man, much less tolerate his continued practices? It is a far stretch to assume that the king would concern himself with every case of witchcraft that came along. However, it would be highly unlikely for a avid hunter of witches to pass up the chance to make an example of someone convicted of murdering the elite nobility. But then James was no avid hunter of witches.
The second example of the king’s indifference is perhaps the most famous–the case of Dr. John Dee. Dee was a well educated scholar and a sincere and intelligent man of character. He operated in a entirely different manner from Lambe. Still, if there was an intensity on the part of the king to root out and convict those who practiced witchcraft and sorcery, Dr. Dee would surely have been a target. There is voluminous documentary evidence of his occult experiments. If brought to trial, Dee could have maintained that he only attempted to invoke forces of good, but theologians would have easily dismantled such claims. Dee was implicated a charge of witchcraft in the Star Chamber in 1555, but was later acquitted.[7] However, he remained publicly condemned, and spent the rest of his life defending his work.
During the later years of James I’s reign in England, he began to question the reliability of the witness’ in most witch trials. Too many convictions were based on the questionable actions of the accusers. Dr. Thomas Fuller noted in his Church History of Britain that such fraud had “wrought such an alteration upon the judgment of King James that…he grew first diffident of, and then flatly to deny, the workings of witches and devils as mere falsehoods and delusions.”[10] The historical records are definitive and specific on the part of James actions.
A letter to his son Prince Henry shows just how concerned King James was with the detection of fraud. Most historians believe the letter was written before Prince Henry left Scotland and an excerpt clearly expresses James’ concern with the elimination of fraudulent accusations:
…I ame also glaide of the discoverle of yone litle counterfitte Wenche. I praye God ye rnaye be my aire [i. e. heir] in such discoveries. Ye have ofte hearde me saye that most miracles nou a dayes proves but illusions, and ye maye see by this hou waire judgis should be in trusting accusations withoute an exacte tryall; and lykewayes hou easielie people are inducid to trust wonders.[13]
So great was his occupation with conterfeit cases of bewitchment and sorcery, that he advised his son to become skilled in the art of detection, because judges and lawyers are easily tricked into believing in fakery.
Sir Roger Wilbraham recorded the king’s involvement in a case of fraud in 1605. He wrote that King James had, by using his own investigative skills, uncovered two cases of imposture. The first case involved a woman who claimed to be under bewitchment and vomiting pins and needles. These symptoms were seen by many scholars of the day as conclusive evidence of bewitchment and therefore, impossible to fake. The king was skeptical and as Wilbraham stated, he "detected the cheat." [14] Eventually he revealed a device that was cleverly concealed in her dress between her breasts which allowed her to accomplish the trick.
It should be noted that James’ skills at detection were not limited to cases of occult fraud. This would be an inaccurate assessment. In November of 1605, James discovered a sentence in a letter to parliament by a man named Mounteagle that led to a conspiracy in the Gunpowder Plot. Certain members of the council who received the letter had taken it to the king because of his skill at solving riddles and mysteries.[16] James’ reputation for detection was apparently well known at the time.
King James did not investigate each case that came before him. He was, after all, the leader of a nation and undoubtedly had other, more pressing matters to attend to. He often sent others to examine incidents for him such as in 1605, when the Earl of Salisbury was ordered to appear before his peers for the bewitchment of two girls. The Earl was arrested and brought to Cambridge to defend himself, however, this was not a trial since it was not a crime to be bewitched, but was a preliminary hearing to determine the truthfulness of the girls’ claims.[17] Similarly, in 1611, orders were issued that the Bishop of Bangor and the Judges of Assize for the County of Carnarvon to investigate a supposed case of witchery committed against six young girls.[18] These incidents relate to us just how concerned King James was with seeking just grounds for accusations. He distrusted such cases as fraudulent and dangerous, and showed a general disbelief in claims of witchcraft. Again, this is not in keeping with his reputation as a man more interested in witchcraft and less concerned with justice.
One case in particular stands out as an example of King James’ direct involvement in an investigation of fraud involving witchcraft. Anne Gunter, a girl from Windsor displayed symptoms associated with bewitchment. Hearing of the behavior that plagued the girl, James called her before him and then turned over the investigation to Dr. Edward Jorden, a reputable London physician. Jorden, in the service of the king, distinguished himself in 1602 by proving that Mary Glover was not bewitched but suffering from delirium.[19] Jorden’s investigation led him to suspect that Anne was an charlatan. The king, under advisement of Jorden who "confirmed in what he had suspected before," confronted Glover. She quickly confessed to fraud but claimed duress, saying that her father had forced her to commit the acts. Her father hoped to accuse a local woman of their neighborhood with whom he had quarreled. King James pardoned Anne and she was released.[20]
The Glover case was typical of how King James cleverly used others investigative skills along with his own to expose fraud. However, his most prominent should make even the most staunch skeptic question the reliability of the claims of James’ distinction as a witch hunter.
July 18, 1616 was a dark day in the history of witch-hysteria. On this day, nine innocent individuals were executed by hanging in Leicester. They weretried and found guilty of bewitching of a boy named Smythe who was afflicted with seizures. During the course of the trial, those accused were forced to recite an oath which was believed to force witches into relinquishing their hold on victims. Upon hearing the oath, Smythe immediately ceased his fits.[21]
Unfortunately for those accused by Smythe, King James did not get involved until after their trial and execution. He became aware of the hangings a month after the executions while on a trip through Leicester. He stayed for less than a day but nevertheless determined the truth of the matter.
Smythe was again afflicted with seizures upon the king’s arrival and had accused six more individuals who would have remained in jail until the Autumn courts opened. Fortunately, James intervened, called the boy before him, witnessed a claimed seizure and suspected fraud. As Francis Osborne recorded:
The King being gratified by nothing more, then an Opportunity to shew his Dexterity in Discovering an Imposture, (at which, I must confess Him, The Promptest Man Living) upon his Arrival convented the Boy. Where, before Him, (possibly daunted at his Presence, or Terrified by his Words) he began to faulter, so as the King discover'd a Fallacy.[22]
The impact of King James' involvement, detection, and displeasure with the outcomes of the Leicester case of 1616 was felt almost instantly. Witch hysteria remained in effect, however, those in charge of investigations and trials were more cautious in their judgments. The king proved his willingness to involve himself on the behalf of the accused and exhibited great skill in the detection. He was a man of great intellect and skepticism. No one desired to match wits with someone so clever, much less one in his position as sovereign.
From the time of King James’ involvement in Leicester case in July of 1616, until his death on March 27, 1625, only five individuals were executed for witchcraft in England. Two of these victims, the sisters Margaret and Philippa Flower, were executed at Lincoln on March 11, 1619.[26] Their mother, Joan, escaped execution by dying in prison.[27] Of the three remaining victims, Elizabeth Sawyer of Edomonton confessed after conviction[28] and the remaining two were hanged in 1624 at Bristol.[29] The five executions performed during the last nine years of King James’ reign were tragic but not monumental. Furthermore, during the case against the Flowers, evidence was presented which indicated that the sisters did attempt to use witchcraft to their advantage, a transgression which would have netted them the same conviction whether under the 1563 or 1604 statute. In this case there was no fraud for the king to investigate nor any reason for his intervention since unforced confessions and available evidence condemned them.
NOTES: [1] Ibid., 315. [2] Ibid., 315. [3] Francis Osbourne. A miscellany of Sundry Essayes, etc., (London, 1589), Essay 1, 4-5. [4] A Briefe Description of the Notorious Life of John Lambe. (Amsterdam, 1628), 3-6. [5] Ibid., 14. [6] Ibid., 20-21. [7] Colin Wilson. The Occult: A History. (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1995), 271. [8] Charlotte Fell Smith. John Dee. (London, 1909), 293, as quoted by Kittredge, 318. [9] E.g. Wilson, 277. [10] Thomas Fuller. Church History of Britian. (London, 1655), 77. [11] James I. Counterblaste to Tobaco. (London, 1604), 108. [12] L. Halliwell. Letters of the Kings, 2 Volumns. (London,1848), V. II, 124-125. [13] Ibid., 102. [14] Ibid., 124. [15] Ibid., 124. [16] James I. King James his Speech to both Houses of Parliament on Occasion of the Gunpowder-Treason, ed., (London, 1679), 7. [17] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, 218. [18] Ibid., 53. [19] Michael Macdonald. Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London: Edward Jordon and the Mary Glover case. (London: Tavistock/ Routledge, 1991), xlvii ff. [20] Ibid., xlviii. [21] E.g. Kittredge, 322. [22] Francis Osbourne. Essayes, (1659), 8, as quoted by Kittredge, 323. [23] Ibid., 323. [24] E.g. Guiley, 177. [25] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611-1618. [26] The Wonderful Discoveried of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip Flower, daughter of Joan Flower neere Bever Castle:Executed at Lincolne, March 11, 1618. (New York: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1973), Sig. B. [27] Ibid., Sig. D2. [28] Henry Goodcole. The wonderful discovery of Elizabeth Sawyer, a witch. (London, 1621) [29] John Latimer. The Annals of Bristol in the Seventeenth Century. (London, 1900), 91. [30] Edward Fairfax. Daemonologia. Editied by William Grainge. (Harrogate, 1882) [31] Elizabeth Pepper and John Wilcock, eds. The Witches Almanac. (Newport: Witches Almanac, Ltd., 1998), 16-18. [32] E.g. Fairfax, 126. [33] Ibid., 126. [34] Ibid., 123-124. [35] Ibid., 127. [36] Ibid., 124. [37] Ibid., 81. [38] E.g. Guiley, 177. [39] E.g. Kittredge, 328.
|
